Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Philosophy of Computer Games pp 101–124Cite as

Digital Games as Ethical Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology ((POET,volume 7))

Abstract

What are the values of an object? How can philosophy illuminate the inherent rhetorical, social, political and moral meanings inscribed in any designed technology? And how can we do this without falling in the intentional fallacy, ascribing all responsibility to the designer? Because, as design researcher Nigel Cross has stated, “design is rhetorical […] in the sense that the designer, in constructing a design proposal, constructs a particular kind of argument, in which a final conclusion is developed and evaluated as it develops against both known goals and previously unsuspected implications” (Cross 2007, p. 51). In this chapter I will look at game design and how it is used to create ethical experiences, only I will not start from the perspective of the designer, but of the finished product as experienced by a user. In this sense, I am extending the rhetorical analysis of design proposed by Cross, and suggesting a way of understanding the ways in which design conveys meaning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Method of Abstraction provides a precise approach to this epistemic process: ‘In the simulation relation, the epistemic agent is coupling the state evolution of two systems by observing these two systems at two Levels of Abstraction. This means that an epistemic agent tries to construct an equivalence relation between the two systems, seeking to understand at what Level of Abstraction those systems could be considered congruent’ (Greco et al. 2005).

  2. 2.

    Instrumental gameplay should be read here as closely related to the concept of instrumental rationality as understood by the Frankfurt School (Horkheimer and Adorno 1997). Also, this type of instrumental thinking is present in both economic theory and AI research. Simon’s work (Simon 1981) provides a classic example of the combination of both. It is not my intention, however, to finely discuss the implications of instrumental rationality in gameplay or in game design.

  3. 3.

    In fact, Ihde and Verbeek describe the mediation of artifacts “in terms of (…) technological intentionality” (Verbeek 2005, p. 114).

  4. 4.

    See Verbeek (2005, pp. 122–128).

  5. 5.

    Verbeek (2000, pp. 212–219) provides a critical overview of ethics and postphenomenology.

  6. 6.

    Weisfeld (2000) is an approachable introduction to the basic concepts and arguments of Object Oriented Programming.

  7. 7.

    “Models are the outcome of the analysis of a system, developed at some LoA(s) for some purpose. An important contribution of these ideas is to make precise the commitment to a LoA(…) before further elaborating a theory. We call this the method of abstraction” (Floridi and Sanders 2004, p. 17).

  8. 8.

    “Instead of limiting the analysis to (veridical) semiotic contents (…) an ecological approach to Information Ethics looks at information from an object-oriented perspective and treats it as entity. In other words, we move from a (broadly constructed) epistemological conception of Information Ethics to one which is typically ontological”.

  9. 9.

    “Like demiurges, we have ‘ecopoietic’ responsibilities towards the whole infosphere. Information Ethics is an ethics addressed not just to ‘users’ of the world but also to producers who are ‘divinely’ responsible for its creation and well-being. It is an ethics of creative stewardship (…)”.

  10. 10.

    See for a brief comparison between both anthropologies.

  11. 11.

    I deem the design as conventional, since it does not innovate any element of the First Person Shooters genre.

  12. 12.

    By game character design I am referring here to those elements of the semiotic level that describe the personality of the character the player will command.

References – Literature

  • Aarseth, Espen. 2005. Doors and perception: Fiction vs. simulation in games. Paper presented at the Digital Arts and Culture, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Craig A., and Brad J. Bushman. 2001. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, psychological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science 12(5): 353–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Craig A., and Karen E. Dill. 2000. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(4): 772–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audi, Robert (ed.). 1999. The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy, 2nd ed. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, Chris, and Richard Boon. 2006. XXI century game design. Hingham: Charles River Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogost, Ian. 2006. Unit operations. An approach to videogame criticism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogost, Ian. 2007. Persuasive games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brey, Philip. 2000a. Method in computer ethics: Towards a multi-level interdisciplinary approach. Ethics and Information Technology 2(3): 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brey, Philip. 2000b. Disclosive computer ethics. Computers and Society 30(4): 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushman, Brad J., and L.Rowell Huesman. 2000. Effects of televised violence on aggression. In Handbook of children and the media, ed. Dorothy G. Singer and Jerome L. Singer. Newbury park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caillois, Roger. 2001. Man, play and games. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, Doug. 2006. Formal abstract design tools. In The game design reader. A rules of play anthology, ed. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, 366–380. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consalvo, Mia. 2005. Rule sets, cheating, and magic circles: Studying games and ethics. International Review of Information Ethics 4: 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, Nigel. 2007. Designerly ways of knowing. Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKoven, Bernie. 2002. The well-played game. A playful path to wholeness. San Jose: Writer’s Club Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eco, Umberto. 1979. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endresen, Inger M., and Dan Olweus. 2005. Participation in power sports and antisocial involvement in preadolescent and adolescent boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(5): 468–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, Luciano. 1999. Information ethics: On the philosophical foundation of computer ethics. Ethics an Information Technology 1: 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, Luciano. 2003a. On the intrinsic value of information objects and the infosphere. Ethics and Information Technology 4(4): 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, Luciano. 2003b. Two approaches to the philosophy of information. Minds and Machines 13: 459–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, Luciano. 2004. The method of abstraction. In Yearbook of the artificial: Nature, culture and technology, vol. II, 177–220. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, Luciano, and Jeff Sanders. 2004. Levellism and the method of abstraction. In Information ethics group research report. Available at http://web2.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/research/areas/ieg/research_reports/ieg_rr221104.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2008.

  • Floridi, Luciano, and Jeff W. Sanders. 2005. Internet ethics: The constructionist values of homo poieticus. In The impact of the internet in our moral lives, ed. R. Cavalier. New York: SUNY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, Jeanne B., Heidi B. Baldacci, Tracie Pasold, and Jennifer Baumgardner. 2004. Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the Internet: Is there desensitization? Journal of Adolescence 27: 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, Gian Maria, Gianluca Paronitti, Matteo Turilli, and Luciano Floridi. 2005. The philosophy of information – A methodological point of view. In WM2005: Professional knowledge management, experiences and visions, ed. Klaus-Dieter Althoff, Andreas Dengel, Ralph Bergmann, Markus Nick, and Thomas Roth-Berghofer, 563–570. Kaiserlautern: DFKI GmbH. Available online at http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/pdf/tpoiampov.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heide Smith, Jonas. 2006. Plans and purposes. How videogame goals shape player behavior. IT University of Copenhagen, Decemeber 7, 2006. Available at http://jonassmith.dk/weblog/wp-content/dissertation1-0.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2010.

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The question concerning technology and other essays. Trans. William Lovitt. London: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1988. The basic problems of phenomenology. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor Adorno. 1997. Dialectic of enlightenment. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, Don. 1990. Technology and the lifeworld. From garden to earth. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, Don. 1993. Postphenomenology. Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston: NorthWestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvinen, Aki. 2008. Games without frontiers: Theories and methods for game studies and design. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Available at http://acta.uta.fi/english/teos.phtml?11046. Accessed 26 Mar 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juul, Jesper. 2005. Half real. Videogames between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juul, Jesper. 2007. A certain level of abstraction. In Conference paper at the third Digital Games Research Association Conference, Tokyo, Japan. Available at http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/acertainlevel/.

  • McCormick, Matt. 2001. Is it wrong to play violent video games? Ethics an Information Technology 3: 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 2002. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Janet. 1998. Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, Donald. 2002. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books/Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penny, Simon. 2004. Representation, enaction, and the ethics of simulation. In First person new media as story, performance, and game, ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan, 73–84. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, Ren. 2002. Playing a “Good” game: A philosophical approach to understanding the morality of games. Available from http://www.igda.org/articles/rreynoldsethics.php.

  • Rollings, Andrew, and Ernst Adams. 2003. On game design. Indianapolis: New Riders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse III, Richard. 2005. Game design theory and practice. Plano: Wordware Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salen, Katie, and Eric Zimmerman. 2003. Rules of play – Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. 1981. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suits, Bernard. 1978. The grasshopper. Games, life and Utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, Dean. 2004. Ethics of game design. Game Developer’s Magazine, December 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A.M., 1936-1937. On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungs problem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society s2-42: 230–265; correction ibid., s2-43 (1936): 544–546 (1937).

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2005. What things do. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisfeld, Matt. 2000. The object oriented thought process. Indianapolis: Sams.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Norbert. 1965. Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

References – Games

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Computer Games Research, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Miguel Sicart

Authors
  1. Miguel Sicart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Sicart .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Philosophy, University of Oslo, Blindern, Oslo, 0315, Norway

    John Richard Sageng

  2. , University of Philosophy, Classics, Hist, University of Oslo, Oslo, 0315, Norway

    Hallvard Fossheim

  3. , Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Kjell Arholmsgt 41, Stavanger, 4036, Norway

    Tarjei Mandt Larsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sicart, M. (2012). Digital Games as Ethical Technologies. In: Sageng, J., Fossheim, H., Mandt Larsen, T. (eds) The Philosophy of Computer Games. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4249-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation